“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming..........."

“............Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

John Key, please take note. This is not cosy 'consensus' junk science. This is the real deal.

Read the whole piece - it is very straight forward, logical and easy to understand.

35 comments:

But will they admit that it was junk science and they were had? Nope. They will keep pushing the "I am going to save the world" message forever. As I have said before and at the risk of being monotonous the current lot of world wide politicians (with the exception of the PM of the Czech Rep. and a few other enlighted politicians) will go down in infamy. As the laughing stock for being so gullible at best or hated as being totally corrupt.

Yep, but I am sure I have also seen research where the CFC/ozone hole relationship was well and truly debunked ... correlation studies do not provide causal relationships.Logically, the sun must play a significant role in warming and cooling ... the espoused relationship between sunspot activity and warming/cooling somehow seems a tad more credible than the one presented.

Holy AGW. Global cooling for the next 50 years? We'll freeze to death. Quick, call a conference and work out a tax system to prevent this calamity. Man-made Global Cooling (AGC) via irreversible CFC damage and other stuff (list to be added later, after further research by East Anglia) will require some sacrifices and cutbacks to be made.

We must act to protect our planet from AGC.

And we still need to tax Carbon to prevent extreme seasonal weather variations in any event.

i aint no scientist but the theory that the ozone layer is made by the sunlight energizing the outerlayer of the atmosphere seems logical.That is why they only have ozone holes at the poles as during the long dark winters the ozone naturally disperses and isn't replenished by the sun. if CFC's were the cause how come there aren't holes above every major city that has lots of old fridges/freezers?Sometimes scientist means : noun meaning someone who is trained to be dumb.jimmie

Sigh, just one more flake theory that contradicts all the other flake theories that have been advanced, because whatever has caused the warming that's been observed since the 1940's it just must not be allowed to be increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, because if that's the cause, it's really politically inconvenient for some people.

Adolf, "This is not cosy 'consensus' junk science. This is the real deal."

Agreed but the SUBJECT that the government has in mind at Copenhagen is International restrictive trade practice.Only when our market access is free of threat can our government freely express a public view.

The internet will speed up the increase in awareness of the Global Warming fraud, but only as fast as the fraudsters are picked off and dealt to.There are four main groups of fraudsters. scientific, financial, political, warmster bloggers

"The one which rests on very dodgy computer models and even dodgier data?"

No KG, AGW is based on radiation physics and observation. The models are mostly about calculating future trends. The data used is the best available, it's from multiple sources - satellite, land, sea, and there's good agreement between these sources. Are you suggesting that there hasn't been warming? If so you're disagreeing with the bases of the paper this post is about, as that paper accepts that there has been warming. As I said, deniers are all about finding some theory, ANY Theory, just as long as it's not AGW, You loons will leap on any half baked idea that looks like it might be a lifeline for you to continue to deny the vast majority of the evidence, your rabid dementedness would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Neithet KG, I nor any other AGW critics have said the world was not warming. (Note, it has not warmed for the last ten years.)

The debate is about the cause of the warming. I defy you to produce any serious evidence that humankind's activity contributes in ANY way to the warming of the world. Further, I defy you to show any serious evidence that a 1 degree general warming of the world over fifty years or so will be anything other than BENEFICIAL to humankind.

Until you can do these two things, I invite you to fuck of and never be heard again.

"The models are mostly about calculating future trends."Err--the models have been shown to be wrong again and again--and those same models did not predict the cooling over the past decade. Which makes them useless.

"The data used is the best available, it's from multiple sources - satellite, land, sea, and there's good agreement between these sources."of COURSE there's 'good agreement' between those sources--the so-called scientists who have recieved billions in funding have massaged, hidden and distorted the data to make sure of exactly that. (It was in all the papers.;-) )

As Adolf just pointed out, I didn't suggest there hasn't been warming, unlike your "reliable sources" which did their best to make the medievel warm period disappear....

"your rabid dementedness would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic."That's called 'projection' in psych circles--thanks for supplying such a textbook example of it. :-)

I would give some credit to mojo, who at least is stable enough to be sticking with Svensmark's GCR theories rather than leaping on this, the latest sugar-plum on offer from the denial-o-sphere, except that mojo is offering astrologer Ken Ring as his supporting authority.

Adolf, contrary to what you claim there are plenty of AGW deniers who're still claiming the measured warming as a product of the UHI effect, or a result of fraud by the CRU and it's all a big conspiracy.

Evidence that the warming is anthropogenic? Do you accept that there are such things as GHG's? Do you accept that mans activities have increased GHG concentrations? Do you accept that while there's been no stratospheric warming, there has been tropospheric warming? Incidentally, this paper is obviously nonsense because of last point above, ozone resides in the stratosphere, if it's increasing concentrations were responsible for the warming, that's where the warming would be, rather than in the troposphere. As I've said before on other forums, I'm not convinced that AGW will be "catastrophic", or even damaging in net terms.

... So your position is that there has been genuine warming but that that measured warming was a result of climate scientists having "massaged, hidden and distorted the data"? Okaaay..

No warming in the last decade? Yet this last decade is the warmest in at least a century, and you know there will be fluctuations around the trendline. So I think by making that argument you're just being dishonest.

"So your position is that there has been genuine warming.."Really? Where did I say that?What I said was I didn't suggest there hasn't been warming.Not the same thing at all.

"No warming in the last decade? Yet this last decade is the warmest in at least a century, and you know there will be fluctuations around the trendline."Depends on which bought-and-paid for scientific data you choose.And isn't it odd that the computer models (and the massaged graphs) show a steady increase, but now they've been blown out of the water a decade of cooling magically becomes "fluctuations around the trendline"?

"So I think by making that argument you're just being dishonest."LOL! You quote a bunch of liars who have corrupted the peer-review process, concocted false figures, hidden and "lost" evidence...and I'm being dishonest?Geddoffit--and go find a more respectable religion while you're at it. You lot are becoming an embarrassment.

"And isn't it odd that the computer models (and the massaged graphs) show a steady increase, but now they've been blown out of the water a decade of cooling magically becomes "fluctuations around the trendline"?"

There's nothing "magical" unusual, or unexpected about fluctuations around the trendline, all you're doing in suggesting that there is is displaying your ignorance, such fluctuations have always been in the temperature record.

"Facts didn't validate the theology of global warming? No problem--eliminate them. Unbelievers were punished with the Wiki equivalent of being burnt at the stake--their articles were removed or changed without permission or the ultimate punishment...banishment from Wiki! Voila! New phony facts--the perfect oxymoron--that magically proved the new theology!"http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/for_agw_religionists_when_in_d.html

& you are right, 'junk science' is indeed 'junk science' & even if the poster here had read the comments on Watts up with That, perhaps the post may have been different. Does indeed reflect an impulsive 'grabbing' of alternative albeit equally spurious stuff to 'emphasise' a 'point,' and indicates a lack of understanding of processes ... bloody insurance salesmen.

"Displaying my ignorance"?You arrogant prick--I'm displaying a fucking sight more honesty than you are.No response at all to the fact that an AGW believer altered and removed entries which didn't suit his viewpoint/religion. None. Yet you call me ignorant and dishonest!Get stuffed. You're simply not worth talking to.

KG, both sides were removing and altering to suit their view point, obviously.

Which is the defining feature of a wiki - anyone can edit them, including people with an axe to grind, which is why some entries change a lot as different "sides" edit them. I presume KG knows this as well as anyone, it just suits him to pretend only one "side" features people of questionable morality.

Do you accept that there are such things as GHG's? Do you accept that mans activities have increased GHG concentrations?

For my part, Yes and Yes. I'm just dubious about the models being used to predict future catastrophe, and the motivation of a lot of the alarmists. Sounds like you are too...

Q:Why is it warmists dont accept the concept that there have been other warming periods in the worlds history and that this has been just one of them?A: Because they believe the information given to them by the 60 (yes , just 60) scientists who have "smoothed" the data, "stretched" the "extrapolation" of their models, excluded information and stifled all alternative debate by bullying and omission.

Andrew W said...If so you're disagreeing with the bases of the paper this post is about, as that paper accepts that there has been warming.

I knew that Andrew Worth will pop in to join such AGW debate/discussion such as this.

Andrew, you & me have been debating this issue for about 4 or so years (going back to when NZ ClimateScience first established). As Adolf pointed out above, the debate is not about whether we're warming or not, but whether human activities is the cause of that and I am surprised that you still haven't got that thru to your head.

Here is a FACT.

The proponents of AGW (and their scientists), didn't do repeatable experiments in the lab, or shall I say the whole planet (as their laboratory) to establish that man's activities was the main cause of the warming. Why did they do? Mathematical back-testing? It is a subject that I am well-versed in since it is what I do for a living. Yep, the mathematics told the warmists that their equations confirmed that it was man-made after all (ie, via statistical confidence test). All they did was back-testing, ie, testing the models against data from the past and not making any correct future predictions. All the future predictions that their models made, have come out all wrong.

Now, compare those climate models to particle physics model as standard model (SM)? SM was formulated not to force fit the model to the existing data, but the model was derived so as to be self-consistent mathematically and valid according to quantum mechanics formulation itself in which its developers didn't know what it would come out of. When SM was tested against existing experimental data, voila, scientists were so amazed that it fit perfectly. The SM also predicted unseen physical phenomena that scientists were not aware of or even think that those things exist in nature (eg - it predicted the existence of quark particles). Decades later, with the advancement of technology, those predictions were confirmed in the lab, that yes, such things do indeed exist in nature.

The power of prediction of such model (ie, the SM in this case - since there are many in physics) is so powerful, that almost anything it says (predicted), must surely/truly correspond to some unseen reality (yet still some understood physical phenomena of nature). This has always been the case with fundamental physics.

Climate science is not fundamental but it is a derived discipline, since it involves thermo-physics, Newtonians (fluid, etc,...) and so forth. It has very little predictive power as fundamental physics theories such as SM and the likes. Climate models only works sometimes but fail most of the times when they back-test. Those models don't make good predictive power as say, SM or general relativity for example, where physical phenomena are predicted way in advance (as already stated, it could be decades ahead, etc).

The main differences here between fundamental physics and derivative physics, are that fundamental physic's theories are tested for consistencies (ie, test if there is some self-contradictions) to see if they're valid. That's why those theories are so powerful in predicting things that us humans never thought that nature itself allows them to exist. Climate models (derivative physics) do no such rigorous self-consistency test at all. Guess what? Those models work well on a narrow domain but useless on a wider domain. What does that say? Fundamental physics says that if anything like that occurs, then the theory is wrong, no ifs no buts, it is certainly wrong. But that is exactly what we see in climate modelling. It accounts for some temperature time-series trend here, but the models fail to account for the trend there (eg - temperature dip in the 1940s to 1960s). In fundamental physic's theories, every domain of observations are accounted by the particular theory itself, there is no such thing as partial or only temporary, it accounts for all time and for all domains, not just work today, but useless tomorrow, etc... They work today, tomorrow, next week etc. They apply here on earth, on the moon , on mars or even the next galaxy.

Climate models are nothing but guess work, which they're not equivalent to fundamental physics models, where things are firmly established. Climate (porn) scientists acted as if they're real scientists (ie, equivalent to particle physicists or cosmologists), but they're nothing more than toilet cleaners. Their models are not to be trusted; since one can always force fit the model to fit the (already collected - available) data. Predictive-wise, they're useless compared to SM or general relativity or quantum mechanics, for example.

Climate modellers are no different to economic/financial market modellers. The models ALWAYS seem to fit data (back-testing) but they always don't make a good profit (you might as well flip a coin than using models for your trade).

The cause of global warming was decided by models and this is the heart and soul of the debate. It wasn't decided by repetitive experiments at all. It was all done via back-testing and the dispute was about that, if back-testing is somehow valid in establishing reality.

Now, can you see the point here Andrew? I hope that I have explained enough here for warmists like you to think about. It is not about the trend, but about the cause. The cause was not firmly established via repeatable experiments, but by back-testing. Economists have been doing back-testing of their models for decades and they still couldn't predict the recent financial melt-down, even though their back-testing showed good fit of their models to the data.

Now, enough explanation, you should take a sceptical view rather than blindly following the warmists religious message.

Falafulu Fisi, regarding your quote of mine, some people are still arguing that the data showing warming isn't correct, even that it's fraudulent, I know that's not your position. I wasn't addressing you when I wrote it, I was asking KG, and I think KG's reply was evasive.

I think the balance of your comments can be summed up with "people can be influenced by their ideology, and the science isn't certain."

If that's your point, we agree.

What in my opinion is certain is that much of the motivation for attacking AGW theory is ideological, and none of the theories put forward to explain the observed warming have undergone and stood up to the scrutiny that GHG caused AGW has.

The theory that this post is about looks very weak to me, what's your opinion? Do you think this ozone centered AGW theory is convincing enough to call it "the devastating money shot from this latest piece of genuine research"?

You yourself have in the past admitted to me that you don't like greenies when I've challenged you on your reasons for attacking AGW theory, so I doubt you'll argue you're immune to having ideological motivations.

To sum-up, if it's about the cause (and it is), show me a cause that's a better explanation of the observations, You'll probably point to GCR. I don't see that as a better fit, but I could be wrong, so prove that it is the main driver of warming and go win your Nobel Prize.

"Warmists" do accept that there have been other warming periods in history, the thing with the current warming is that we are seeing a rise in temperature closely matching the rise in GHG concentrations that was predicted over 100 years ago. The science predates the politics.

Shame the IPCC's predictions more recently don't match real world observations.CO2 has been roundly discredited by scientists the world over, it is through bullying and deceit that these scientists don't have their valid, peer-reviewed studies in the journals and front pages of the media. But that us changing, thanks to concerted efforts by people currently derided as skeptics but ultimately to be known as heroes when the whole scam is revealed.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggershigher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A largenumber of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanishedwithout a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and theU.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russiangeographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.